USSR pro boxing

[billeau2]

The Cubans are still strong though, perhaps they won't be so much in the years to come. The Russians are still doing well too as are a number of countries from the former Soviet Union, the two that most spring to mind are Ukraine and Kazakhstan.

Do you think the level of skill in the Olympics is as good these days? I don't follow it as regularly but I got the impression the skill level has decreased.

[billeau2]

If the Soviet Union had set its mind on being #1 in pro boxing, their fighters had probably dominated most weight classes.

Like the Soviet hockey players, all (skilled) boxers would have had high military ranks, and been in military (i.e. training) camps for at least 11 months a year. And they had been surrounded by top trainers, scientists and specialist doctors who had stuffed 'em with performance-enhancing drugs.

Luckily, Soviet fought its cold sports war against US in other areas (boxing was never its priority), so today we escape what would have been a heated discussion about which Soviet "ATGs" of the past were doped or not ... (Really, they all had been.)

Well....heres the thing. You get an incredible concert painist, like horowitz. they practice in a conservatory all hours, and they are indeed fantastic.

you get a guy like the late BB King....creative, improvisational, also incredibly talented, you look at the blues guys who developed technique and who are also fantastic...

is one better than the other? Russian fight theory is European in nature and not very improversational, they can get very strong with technique and become fantastic, but, American boxing is like Jazz, creativity is valued and new innovative ways of using angles and punches....

I don't think the Soviets would have dominated. I think they would have had some great fighters though.

Who was a better pianist? Professor Long Hair or Vladimere Horowitz? Its really a rhetorical question.

[ShoulderRoll]

Guys like Ali, Frazier, and Foreman were very successful as amateurs against Eastern Bloc fighters. I don't think boxing history would have changed too dramatically had Soviet boxers been allowed to turn pro.

[The Old LefHook]

Well....heres the thing. You get an incredible concert painist, like horowitz. they practice in a conservatory all hours, and they are indeed fantastic.

you get a guy like the late BB King....creative, improvisational, also incredibly talented, you look at the blues guys who developed technique and who are also fantastic...

is one better than the other? Russian fight theory is European in nature and not very improversational, they can get very strong with technique and become fantastic, but, American boxing is like Jazz, creativity is valued and new innovative ways of using angles and punches....

I don't think the Soviets would have dominated. I think they would have had some great fighters though.

Who was a better pianist? Professor Long Hair or Vladimere Horowitz? Its really a rhetorical question.

Interesting analogies, lad.

Remember now, I said if Stalin had plucked men from his gulag to become prizefighters I could see them dominating. This would be a funtion of their desperation.

Of guitar I am very confident in my views, but even moving to piano I lose some of my bluster. I suppose that is the one thing I know more about than anything else.

I have had people tell me that B.B. King or Eric Clapton was a greater guitarist than Tommy Emmanuel. All I can do is give them a little smile. Liking something more does not make it better than something you do not like as much. Elton John is only compared to Mozart on an artistic level by those with extreme deficits of understanding in music. Elton John is easier to digest, you do not have to concentrate to listen to John. What is there to concentrate on, really?

Rubinstein and Horowitz we can reasonably compare. It really does come down to taste. We can even make finer demarcations, such as preferring Horowitz on dynamic and bombastic pieces and wanting Rubenstein for his advanced sensitivity on deep pieces. Segovia and Bream, but not Segovia and Duane Eddy. What sense does that make?

I am the first to admit I have no point. I just wanted to ramble.

[billeau2]

Interesting analogies, lad.

Remember now, I said if Stalin had plucked men from his gulag to become prizefighters I could see them dominating. This would be a funtion of their desperation.

Of guitar I am very confident in my views, but even moving to piano I lose some of my bluster. I suppose that is the one thing I know more about than anything else.

I have had people tell me that B.B. King or Eric Clapton was a greater guitarist than Tommy Emmanuel. All I can do is give them a little smile. Liking something more does not make it better than something you do not like as much. Elton John is only compared to Mozart on an artistic level by those with extreme deficits of understanding in music. Elton John is easier to digest, you do not have to concentrate to listen to John. What is there to concentrate on, really?

Rubinstein and Horowitz we can reasonably compare. It really does come down to taste. We can even make finer demarcations, such as preferring Horowitz on dynamic and bombastic pieces and wanting Rubenstein for his advanced sensitivity on deep pieces. Segovia and Bream, but not Segovia and Duane Eddy. What sense does that make?

I am the first to admit I have no point. I just wanted to ramble.

Liberace- "People like me because when I play classical music I take all the boring parts out." True quote from Johnny Carson show. was he kidding...Lord knows I hope so!

You make a great point Lefty. And your right about what you call "a reasonable comparison." But people develop technique from innovation. The great painists or guitarists, developed from players who were not as technically gifted in some proverbial point in time....Stravinsky could not have written the complex music he wrote without a modernization of composing techniques. And for every Stravinsky how many horrendous modern composers bit the dust?

Specifically to address your point I would refer to technique. many of the Blues innovations....using the fingers a certain way on the guitar, the great singing techniques (I once heard the blind boys in concert hold notes for an insane amount of time) develop over time. Even today, many jazz painists can play with technical proficiency that was unheard of a few generations ago. In a word there are two major contributers to human progress and evolution:
1) technical proficiency.....when the cave man is attacked by the Tiger who can use the spear well enough to live? 2) Creativity....When the wolf pack attacks and no spearman can defeat such a group no matter the proficiency, one smart guy gives the wolves some of the kill, the wolves hang around, share meals, become friends and cohabitants....and today because of that innovation I am looking at whom I call my third son....a beautiful German Shephard mix who looks after my wife and kids better than any alarm system I can think of.

I think creativity is magic, but it NEEDS to become expressed in technical proficiency to become what it potentially can and in that respect I agree with you 100%. I also think your point about Stalin stands because: If the wolf situation could have been overcome with technique, no need to adapt takes place, no innovaton, no greatness. The japanese warrior culture stands alone because it developed on an island, no place to run, so everybody fought. Everybody used their minds, their fingers (to write) to develop methods of fighting, sort of like the gulag you speak of. Consequently I can pick up teatises on sword work today written hundreds of years ago that still apply to combat efficacy.

[Humean]

Do you think the level of skill in the Olympics is as good these days? I don't follow it as regularly but I got the impression the skill level has decreased.

You mean compared to the 60, 70s and 80s? If so then yes i'd say it is as good as in the past. Indeed Rigondeaux and Lomachenko are strong candidates for being the very best amateur boxer in history.

[Ben Bolt]

Well....heres the thing. You get an incredible concert painist, like horowitz. they practice in a conservatory all hours, and they are indeed fantastic.

you get a guy like the late BB King....creative, improvisational, also incredibly talented, you look at the blues guys who developed technique and who are also fantastic...

is one better than the other? Russian fight theory is European in nature and not very improversational, they can get very strong with technique and become fantastic, but, American boxing is like Jazz, creativity is valued and new innovative ways of using angles and punches....

I don't think the Soviets would have dominated. I think they would have had some great fighters though.

Who was a better pianist? Professor Long Hair or Vladimere Horowitz? Its really a rhetorical question.

I like the comparisons you made

However, returning to Soviet hockey players (for ex.) in the 1970-80s, they showed they had learned how to improvise à la BB King, and were the best in their era (when they lost to the Canadians, it was because the Canadians always set up the rules for every tournament).

In Soviet, the system methodically looked for talents in kids aged 5-7 in every field it had decided to be successful in, and thereafter had the kids specializing on that particular bit. A kid’s loss in the ring would have been scrutinized by a hord of specialists, and next kid had been taught to come up with another strategy.

For the Soviet, sport was never pure sport, but a military thing to succeed the Western world. And when the military industry gets involved, there is no limit of resources.